This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:49:05 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
References: <20110324131518.GO23480@codesourcery.com> <4D9F4AE0.6050200@redhat.com> <20110422005052.GU23480@codesourcery.com>

On 04/21/2011 08:50 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:

On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:50:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
As jsm and richi said, using input_location like this is a regression.
Can we use DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (label_decl) instead?
I went off and tried that; some callers provide a NULL label_decl.

Hunh. How does that work? They fill in CASE_LABEL later? Can that be changed?

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
  - From: Nathan Froyd

References:
- Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [PATCH PING] c++-specific bits of tree-slimming patches
  - From: Nathan Froyd

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]